Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Insurance Procurement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sumner County board selects ESP to manage property and casualty insurance procurement
Summary
At its Jan. 16, 2025 special meeting, the Sumner County Insurance and Liability Board voted to retain Exploring Security Planning Inc. (ESP) as the county’s broker to lead the procurement of property and casualty insurance and to prepare an RFP process.
On Jan. 16, 2025, the Sumner County Insurance and Liability Board voted to retain Exploring Security Planning Incorporated (ESP) to help the county solicit and evaluate bids for property and casualty insurance.
The decision followed discussion about the county’s recent practice of using broker services rather than running its own multi‑year requests for proposals. Board members discussed a history of a 2019 RFP, a 2021 shift to broker services, and a December 2023 timing issue for courthouse coverage that prompted the current review.
Board members and staff said the county had previously run a three‑year bid cycle through 2019, then moved to annual renewals via brokers beginning in 2021. The board chair said last year the county was “rushed” and had to buy coverage within two weeks; members agreed the county should now re‑establish a formal procurement process to avoid that situation.
Staff told the board the county’s risk office will prepare the RFP, drawing on the 2019 document and input from whichever broker the board designates. The board discussed two firms that have worked with the county: ESP (referred to during the meeting by its representative, Mr. Shute) and a second broker identified in the record as “CIA” (described during the meeting only as a broker service). Under the planned process, interested insurers will submit sealed bids; the county and the selected broker will review and evaluate those bids. If the sealed‑bid process produces no acceptable offers, staff said the county could ask CIA to obtain quotes directly as a fallback.
Legal constraints were raised during the discussion. A board member said the Tennessee Code Annotated (TCA) contains limits on how some professional services are procured and noted that state law generally restricts using price alone to choose professional services. Board members concluded that choosing a broker is a professional‑services decision but that the purchase of insurance policies is a product that should proceed through a competitive RFP sealed‑bid process.
Concerns about duplication and cost were a central theme. Several members said the county has paid both brokers in the past and that having two firms involved appeared to duplicate effort and add expense; one member cited a monthly payment figure for ESP of $600 under an existing arrangement and referenced a contract executed in May 2007. Members discussed a range of past payments and fees but did not provide a complete, reconciled cost history during the meeting.
A motion that the county select Exploring Security Planning Incorporated to be the broker guiding the next procurement cycle was made and seconded. The board approved the motion by voice vote; members confirmed the selection at the meeting. Meeting participants did not state a numerical roll‑call tally in the record.
The board directed staff to prepare the RFP and to coordinate with the selected broker on drafting and then receiving sealed bids. Staff also said they would retain copies of all bids and present evaluations to the board. The board scheduled a follow‑up agenda for its next meeting to continue procurement work and other items.
No public commenters spoke during this special meeting. The meeting began with a brief invocation; members then moved directly into the insurance procurement discussion.
